Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AGP Card to get 125 fps or 333 fps on lowest settings

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 18, 2007 8:13:20 PM

I play COD2 and was looking for a very cheap upgrade to my system as I currently play with an mx420 and 256 RAM. I can buy a stick of 512 for like $45 on newegg, but I need some video card advice. I just want to know what card can keep me at 125 fps stable and locked at lowest settings and what one can keep me at 333. Remember lowest on DX7 is what I'm shooting for.

More about : agp card 125 fps 333 fps lowest settings

January 18, 2007 8:18:06 PM

wow... DX7 huh? well... umm... in your case an AGP x800 series card would be more than enough. even an FX series would be fine.
January 18, 2007 8:24:19 PM

Yup, I have a old crappy Dell and I'm a 16 yr old looking to give it one last improvement so I don't get kicked off my CAL team lol. I would love something to give me 333, but 125 is fine if it's dirt cheap. I only have a 2.53 P4 and 250w psu, so I will be so bottlenecked, it doesn't even matter. I'm getting a job soon anyway and will be saving up for a Core Duo/8800 system anyway. Just looking for something quick to give me stable fps that I can actually play well on because 40-90 unstable fps on my dying out MX420 64mb aint cutting it.
Related resources
January 18, 2007 8:35:59 PM

Why such a specific FPS? You aren't going to see a difference between 333 and 125 FPS I guarantee it.
January 18, 2007 8:46:37 PM

I'm looking in the $50-60 range pref. Used or new, I don't care. 125fps is fine as long as it stays stable and doesn't move too much when I lock it. My friend has a fx5200 and hated it, so I would prefer not to go there.
January 18, 2007 8:52:29 PM

Quote:
Why such a specific FPS? You aren't going to see a difference between 333 and 125 FPS I guarantee it.


It's a bug in the q3 engine.
It causes some weird effects. You can jump higher, and the sound of footsteps become further apart and can even dissapear totally.
January 18, 2007 8:58:59 PM

One could see a minimum at your refresh rate, 75 or 85. 125 and 333 must be your lucky numbers?
January 18, 2007 9:26:48 PM

hmmm... will those cards give u the fps u want though? i can see the 9600 maybe... but not so sure about 9250. let me do some googling.
January 18, 2007 9:36:56 PM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/powercol...

check this out... as u can see the 6800 can barely pull 29fps at 1024x768 in pure speed mode. granted they are using dx9... if it were run in dx7 it'd probably be MUCH faster... but i dunno 120fps.

i still stand by my x800 recommendation.
January 18, 2007 9:40:43 PM

I don't want to pay that much and also, I will be running on DX7 and it will be on lowest resolution. 6800 would give you probably 333 on the settings I want to play at.
January 18, 2007 9:45:45 PM

Quote:
Yup, I have a old crappy Dell and I'm a 16 yr old looking to give it one last improvement so I don't get kicked off my CAL team lol. I would love something to give me 333, but 125 is fine if it's dirt cheap. I only have a 2.53 P4 and 250w psu, so I will be so bottlenecked, it doesn't even matter. I'm getting a job soon anyway and will be saving up for a Core Duo/8800 system anyway. Just looking for something quick to give me stable fps that I can actually play well on because 40-90 unstable fps on my dying out MX420 64mb aint cutting it.


Their is no way in hell your going to find the difference between 125fps and 333fps regardless of what graphics settings and resolution you play at. I cant see why you would play at DX7, than at DX9. I too stand by mpjesse for the X800pro. With that, you could play COD2 at max settings and still get a stable 50-60fps. And its still no different from 125.
January 18, 2007 9:45:55 PM

then why the fcuk did u post in here if you already knew the answer?

jesus h christ.

[/getting tired]
January 18, 2007 9:49:12 PM

Quote:
then why the fcuk did u post in here if you already knew the answer?

jesus h christ.

[/getting tired]


hahahahaha :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

this was a nice break from my report :lol: 
January 18, 2007 9:50:12 PM

i'm sort of doing payroll at the moment... i'm a little short on patience. lol.
January 18, 2007 9:52:36 PM

I only hoped that something under $60 could do it. I guess I should have rephrased what I was trying to say.
January 18, 2007 10:01:07 PM

I don't think that you could do tue x800 because of your low power PSU. Last I checked the x800's were definite power suckers, and a 250 watt power supply would just not cut it. Probably the 6600 or the 9800 would work.
January 18, 2007 10:13:35 PM

People have used 7600's in this computer, so PSU isn't a problem. Finding something for really cheap is. Also, this is lowest settings on lowest resolution on DX7.
January 18, 2007 10:31:38 PM

Hey mate :

Actually it's Impossible to have such a high FPS with your processor .

COD2 is a CPU bounded game .. that means it depends on your CPU to boost it's frames , for example at 800 x 600 with the lowest visual settings and a P4 3.0 GHZ HT .. a 6600GT will play the game at 90 FPS stable .

at 1024 x 768 FPS is 90 stable .
at 1280 x 1024 FPS is 90 stable
at 1280 x 1024 Extra textures .. 87 ~ 90 stable .

As you see , you must have a more powerful CPU to boost your performance especially in this game .. if you installed 1.2 patch the game wil depend in your CPU even more , By using Multi-Threading or Multi-cores !


I would recommend a 7300GT 256MB a 90$ NEW !
a very decent DDRII card with 4 vertex shaders that should handle the game very well with even DX9 ! don't worry you'll get good FPS with it .

May be the normal 6600 128MB ?

But be AWARE : you won't get those fancy 125 FPS with your CPU .. instead expect 60 FPS stable !
January 18, 2007 10:52:03 PM

Why would you play a game in DirectX 7, with lowest resolutions, and low settings. That would make me puke.

If you can jump higher with those fps, and that is important to you, then you suck. If you play at higher resolutions with better textures it will be easier to see and use cover, and find people. Goddammit, are you a noob or something? +50 fps is retarded, "high jump" or not.
-cm
January 18, 2007 10:56:42 PM

Your power supply WILL go bad if you put any decent card in there.
I'm thinking a 9600 something.
You have a 250 watt that's years old.
Maxing out at prob 220 now.
You cant have a card that uses 50 watts itself.
January 18, 2007 10:57:50 PM

I'm sorry I don't have a ton of money and a super comp, but I have played along with some very good CAL-O players with an MX420. 125fps beats graphics every time. I would rather have my Garand shoot like a 44 than better graphics. BTW, its not impossible because my friend has a P4 2.6 and has a 9 series Radeon and got 120fps. He upgraded to a 7800gs and now has 333 constant. He won't give me the 9550 though.
January 18, 2007 11:15:42 PM

May I ask what dell system you have exactly?

I have a dell 4550 that I've modded for fun and some games..
I might be able to help if you tell me what model you have....
January 18, 2007 11:48:12 PM

Why don't you offer your friend who upgraded to 7800 like $20 for his old card?

Also, I still don't understand the 125/333 FPS theory you are stating here. Are you saying that at ultra high FPS it's super smooth, which makes you play better?
January 18, 2007 11:59:35 PM

I got 512 Crucial DDR-333 RAM and a 9600xt. Big improvement from my previous 256mb of RAM and a MX420. Thanks for the help on the suggestion for the 9600! It should run pretty damn close to how I want it to. All I have to do is install it in the agp slot and download drivers and uninstall my old drivers right?
January 19, 2007 12:00:00 AM

Perfect.
I think any more and he's very close to breaking that PSU.
January 19, 2007 12:14:37 AM

People have run 7600gs on it with no problems before so I don't think the PSU will be a problem. Dell underrates their PSU's, while GFX card makers overrate theirs.
January 19, 2007 12:51:08 AM

No graphics card manufacturers dont really overrate anything. They tell you that you need like 30A on the 12V rail to cover the system needs as well. No card uses 30A on its own, regardless of whether Powercolor thinks my x1950 pro needs that much or not.
January 19, 2007 12:52:12 AM

Oh, and the 7600gs could run off the electrical signals from your brain, so saying your psu can handle it isnt saying much at all really.
January 19, 2007 12:56:23 AM

I don't know why 5 or more people on the Dell forums would say their psu ran their 7600gs's in Dell Dimm 4550, especially since the Dell techs say they can't. I am just going by what others have told me what has run and hasn't in their systems.
January 19, 2007 2:10:12 AM

125 FPS with a Radeon 9550 ? well your freind must have a very powerful CPU .. because as I told you no matter what Video card you have .. COD2 is a CPU bounded game .

if you noticed here a 6600GT is far better than a 9550 ..and yet it scored 90 with a better processor !

you said you got a Radeon 9600 right ? .. well then , run the game and see if it even exceeded 60 FPS !

see this picture :


using a Core 2 duo X6800 and an X1900 512MB .. the game scored 188 FPS .. and you're telling me that your friend play it at 333 ?!!

obviously he is just exaggerating ..may be this is his maximum .. but this will never be his average or stable FPS !

look at the picture again a P4 EE @ 3.7 GHZ barely scored 150 FPS .
January 19, 2007 2:38:34 AM

again .. another benchmark at 640 x 480 ..with a 7800GT .


Notice that the only case where FPS scored 220+ is when they over clocked E6600 @ 3.4 GHZ (435 x 8 ) .

non-overclocked E6600 scored 170 FPS .. and notice that this is a timedemo in which FPS are much usually higher than actual game play .

full article : http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core...
January 19, 2007 2:55:36 AM

I think that's on DX9 dude because there are so many people that will tell you they get 333 constant with 7600's and up. Nobody's exaggerating and if you want to go to the CAL forums and ask what everyone gets for FPS, it will prove you wrong. I got 130 stable in buildings in Carentan with my MX420, so I think your statistics are very old and messed up. Also, a 7800gt gets 333fps on any map with any kind of a decent pc. Those statistics are inaccurate and you can tell by asking anyone who plays COD2 at low settings.
January 19, 2007 3:31:33 AM

What I do know here is that I already ran the game at 800 x 600 , 1024 x 768 , 1280 x 1024 .. with a 6600GT and it scored 90 FPS stable in all cases with lowest graphic settings .
January 19, 2007 3:53:12 AM

Who cares if they got it? You're eye can't tell the difference above 30 FPS for most people, 50 FPS for the psychos. 333 FPS... that is such BS.

COD2 is a sweet game though, good pick for a game to play. I'm more a fan of the origonal, but the sequel does the first justice. Have fun I guess, even if you don't get those absurd FPS.
-cm
January 19, 2007 4:08:45 AM

You can definately tell between 30 and 60 and it only gets larger until 125. 125 and 333 give you distinct shooting, running, and jumping abilities unacheived by other fps's. I would rather have 125 with low settings than 60 with high.
January 19, 2007 4:27:53 AM

Fcuk you are annoying. You kept repeating the same thing over and over again. Go play your game and get your unatainable fps
January 19, 2007 4:50:37 AM

Quote:
You can definately tell between 30 and 60 and it only gets larger until 125. 125 and 333 give you distinct shooting, running, and jumping abilities unacheived by other fps's. I would rather have 125 with low settings than 60 with high.
'

No, you are wrong the human eye cannot tell a difference between maybe a max of 80 FPS (MAYBE if you have the reflexes of a cat) and 125 and higher. I think you might be getting confused with a DROP in FPS when action gets heavy maybe? There is just no way you can tell a difference between 60 and 125. Unless you are inhuman.
January 19, 2007 5:42:50 AM

Guys, this has been argued about so many times that I keep this link handy.

FPS

*edit* took typo out
January 19, 2007 7:28:22 AM

Yeah, thanks a lot. The OP is probably just a bit confused or misinformed.
January 19, 2007 12:18:41 PM

Good link, Dade. I'm not sure it supports the poster's arguments though. 330 FPS is ridiculous in a game, but the link seems to indicate that 125 is not as bad or even beneficial...
-cm
January 19, 2007 1:10:36 PM

i have a 9600 pro aiw that you can have for $40. with dx9 cod2 chugs, but it flies in dx7 mode. let me know if interested.
January 19, 2007 1:35:30 PM

Quote:
You can definately tell between 30 and 60 and it only gets larger until 125. 125 and 333 give you distinct shooting, running, and jumping abilities unacheived by other fps's. I would rather have 125 with low settings than 60 with high.
'

No, you are wrong the human eye cannot tell a difference between maybe a max of 80 FPS (MAYBE if you have the reflexes of a cat) and 125 and higher. I think you might be getting confused with a DROP in FPS when action gets heavy maybe? There is just no way you can tell a difference between 60 and 125. Unless you are inhuman.


You can tell a difference for sure in FPS games. I play at a set 100fps because thats where I stop noticing a beneficial change. 30fps is unplayable for a FPS, 50-60 is annoying. You may argue you can't see more individual frames per second after 30-50, but the game runs smoothers overall at higher fps.
January 19, 2007 2:37:40 PM

You do realize that most monitors are limited at about 85 Hz don't you?

An 85 Hz monitor can display 85 fps max before butchering the images with 'tearing' artifacts...

Unless you have a 125 Hz monitor refresh rate... which I've never seen... Your goal should be 65fps minimum, the averages aren't that important, but the minimum framerate is...
January 19, 2007 2:42:37 PM

I stick to 100fps being my maximum perceived fps. My monitor is 75hz.
January 19, 2007 7:50:30 PM

Quote:
I currently have a Dell 4550. I have an MX420 and am looking to upgrade so I can get 125 fps constant on lowest settings on COD2.


I thought you did. I have the same pc as you accept it came with a P4 @2.4ghz instead of your 2.53 whatever..and I've modded mine.
So there is some hope for your machine. I did stick an x800gto into it and that sucker takes power from the psu but my system did not have any problems. I've upgraded the psu to get rid of that old Dell psu in there and it's rock solid. I do not game on it anymore, but when I did, most of my games must've been CPU bottlenecked so I would think that anything like my card or lower would be perfect and get the most out of your system.

It sounds like the 7600 gs would be perfect (that's if you had enough money for it)

Good luck.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!